UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
September 26, 2012
MARIA C. ROLDAN-TENNANTAND KENNETH C. TENNANT, TOGETHER WITH TWO MINOR CHILDREN, WITH HOUSEKEEPING AT THIRTY-NINE THIRTY-FIVE ROLLING HILLS DRIVE, BETTENDORF, COUNTY OF SCOTT, IOWA
QCR HOLDING, INC., DBA 3351 --7TH STREET, SUITE 204 MOLINE, IL 61265 AND QUAD CITY BANK AND TRUST CO., INC. DBA 2118 MIDDLE ROAD, BETTENDORF, IOWA 52722 DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sara Darrow United States District Judge
Wednesday, 26 September, 2012 04:20:41 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
This Court granted Defendants' [#4] Motion to Dismiss because Plaintiffs failed to oppose and because a virtually identical lawsuit was filed by Plaintiffs in the Southern District of Iowa before this case was filed. Before the Court now is Plaintiffs' [#6] Motion to Reconsider.
Plaintiffs did timely oppose Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and the
Court will therefore consider Plaintiffs' opposition.*fn1
However, the Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs'
opposition. Plaintiffs first filed their virtually-identical complaint
in the Southern District of Iowa. This action is therefore duplicative
and judicial administration counsels towards dismissal. See Serlin
v. Arthur Anderson and Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993); Hicks v.
Midwest Transp., Inc., No 07-cv-854, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30122, at
*3 ("When duplicative claims are pending in multiple federal forums,
the later filed actions generally give way to the first filed.")
(citing Warshawsky & Co. v. Arcata Nat. Corp., 552 F.2d 1257 1265 (7th
Plaintiffs' argument against dismissal is that the Southern District of Iowa will not fairly evaluate Plaintiffs' case. The Court is not persuaded that the District Court in Iowa is unable to objectively and fairly adjudicate Plaintiffs' claims. At best, Plaintiffs' opposition amounts to frustrations with prior adverse rulings. Indeed, Plaintiffs' distrust of the Iowa Court is somewhat disingenuous as Plaintiffs voluntarily filed their case there. And dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims in this forum cannot adversely affect Plaintiffs' claims in the Southern District of Iowa because Plaintiffs' virtually identical claims can be litigated to the same extent there as they could be here. Allowing duplicative actions to proceed in parallel is an unwise use of scarce judicial resources.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' [#6] Motion to Reconsider is DENIED and Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter Judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs.